JUDGMENT

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court setting aside part of the order imposing fine in lieu of confiscation and directing the Collector, Ganjam to pass orders under second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short the ‘Act’). The writ petition was filed against the order dated 29.5.2006 of Collector, Ganjam in a proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act.

3. Facts leading to initiation of the aforesaid case is that on 21.12.2004 while the Marketing Inspector, Jaganathprasad Block, while following the Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar during tour to Jagannathprasad Block, found one bus bearing registration No.OIG-185 parked at the Bus Stand and kerosene oil was being poured in the oil tank of the bus. Looking at them, both the driver and the conductor of the vehicle fled away. He drained out the kerosene oil from the oil tank of the bus which contained 42 litres of kerosene, and prepared the sample list by taking 2 litres out of the seized kerosene oil for its chemical examina¬tion. The bus as well as kerosene were seized and a proceeding bearing EME No.37 of 2004 was initiated against the respondent and another under Section 6-A of the Act. The proceeding was initiated for contravention of Clause 8 of Orissa Kerosene Con¬trol Order, 1962 read with Clause 3 of Kerosene Control (Restric¬tion on use and Fixation of Ceiling Price), 1993. In the said proceeding, the respondent who is the owner of the bus filed an application for release of the vehicle. While deciding the afore¬said application, the Collector concluded the proceeding under Section 6-A of the Act and directed confiscation of the vehicle. However, the Collector in view of the provisions contained in Section 6-A of the Act directed the respondent to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/-.

4. Stand of the writ petitioner was that while considering the application for release of the vehicle, the Collector could not have concluded the proceedings under Section 6-A(1) of the Act. It was also pointed out that if the Collector concluded the proceedings under Section 6-A(1) of the Act, there was no reason for him to impose conditions such as payment of fine of Rs.20,000/-. With reference to second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Act it was submitted that if fine is imposed in lieu of confiscation, the same shall not exceed the market price of the essential commodities seized. This plea found favour with learned Single Judge.

5. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the true scope and ambit of second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Act has not been kept in view.

6. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice.

7. The true scope and ambit of second proviso to Section 6-A (1) of the Act was examined by this Court in Deputy Commis¬sioner, Dakshina Kannada District v. Rudolph Fernandes (2000 (3) SCC 306). It was inter-alia observed as follows :

“4. The short question involved in these appeals is - wheth¬er fine in lieu of confiscation contemplated under the second proviso to Section 6-A(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) provides for levy of fine on the basis of market value of the confiscated vehicle or on the basis of the market price of the essential commodity sought to be carried by such vehicle. Section 6-A of the Act is as under.

“6-A Confiscation of essential commodity.- (1) Where any essential commodity is seized in pursuance of an order made under Section 3 in relation thereto, a report of such seizure shall, without unreasonable delay, be made to the Collector of the district or the presidency town in which such essential commodity is seized and whether or not a prosecution is instituted for the contravention of such order, the Collector may, if he thinks it expedient so to do, direct the essential commodity so seized to be produced